View Full Version : Scots Independence poll Result
Sorry don't know how to close the poll without closing the thread..ho hum.
Result; 102 voters
55 in favour of staying in the UK
47 in favour of independence.
I think thats probably fairly reflective of the national picture if the press is to be believed. Well done for a bright idea Ducati :)
I think thats probably fairly reflective of the national picture if the press is to be believed. Well done for a bright idea Ducati :)
I think it also reflects a lack of interest, only 102 voters in three days. Something I can also see in the real thing.
DeHaviLand
13-Jan-12, 16:58
Turnout is really poor. Lets hope that by the time the real thing comes round, more people will have an interest in the future of the country in which they live.
Turnout is really poor. Lets hope that by the time the real thing comes round, more people will have an interest in the future of the country in which they live.
Mind You, it might just reflect the number of orgers who have me on ignore :lol:
DeHaviLand
13-Jan-12, 17:15
Mind You, it might just reflect the number of orgers who have me on ignore :lol:
Sorry, did you say something?
Bobinovich
13-Jan-12, 18:39
I think a large number will want to wait until more is know about how it's all going to work - especially the Europe part! Plus there was no Devo Max option which again, we'll need more details of before a real opinion can be formulated.
Tubthumper
13-Jan-12, 21:31
I can't understand why Cameron & co are so desperate to have the referendum right now, at the same time as they're banging on about what a serious matter it is. Are they afraid of something. It also seems to me there's a lot of people in England saying they'd be glad to see us go (so they can stop subsidising us) at the same time as they're claiming we're stronger together.
And I noticed a couple of anomalies in 'Question Time' last night - If we leave the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, surely they'll have to change their name. Britain won't exist any more, will it?
secrets in symmetry
14-Jan-12, 00:54
Sorry don't know how to close the poll without closing the thread..ho hum.
Result; 102 voters
55 in favour of staying in the UK
47 in favour of independence.The statistical uncertainty in the poll result is comparable with the deviation from a 50:50 result. Fold in the systematics and you can't conclude anything.
John Little
14-Jan-12, 09:56
The statistical uncertainty in the poll result is comparable with the deviation from a 50:50 result. Fold in the systematics and you can't conclude anything.
But were the ratio the same in a national poll would the result be regarded as a conclusion?
But were the ratio the same in a national poll would the result be regarded as a conclusion?
The sample is valid, plenty of credible polls UK wide with a 1000 responders.
tonkatojo
14-Jan-12, 11:01
I think a large number will want to wait until more is know about how it's all going to work - especially the Europe part! Plus there was no Devo Max option which again, we'll need more details of before a real opinion can be formulated.
The Europe part will probably be a nonentity by the time the actual vote comes along, France is weeping in wine today and Sarkozy's stature has actually diminished more in the French peoples eyes, big trouble brewing soon.
John Little
14-Jan-12, 14:25
Yes - it might be wise, considering the incredible influence these three US based agencies have, to ask Standard and Poors, Moodys, or Fitch group, what would be the credit rating of an independent Scotland?
Or what the credit rating of the rest of Britain would be without Scotland.
If the judgment of these people is so important economically then it would seem even prudent to ask them.
teddybear1873
14-Jan-12, 14:32
This is from the 'Scotman' John
http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/politics/threat_to_top_credit_rating_in_separate_scotland_1 _2037787
John Little
14-Jan-12, 15:06
Wow! Thank you for that!!
Mr Swinney may end up looking very like M Sarkozy in the long run I think. He seems to want to glaze it with a rosy colour, but on the basis of what this says, then the cost of borrowing money on every level in an independent Scotland would rise dramatically.
No amount of political spin could alter that so it seems imperative that the ratings agencies are tasked to come up with an assessment so that people can get a cold view of the situation. It's all very well waving a flag and shouting 'follow me' - but this puts entirely a different hue on this shifting pattern of opinion.
Excellent link.
secrets in symmetry
14-Jan-12, 15:37
But were the ratio the same in a national poll would the result be regarded as a conclusion?Yes. 54% : 46% in a national poll is a clear result - assuming the turnout was reasonable.
However, the closeness of the result means the issue wouldn't be settled in the eyes of many.
The sample is valid, plenty of credible polls UK wide with a 1000 responders.Polls with 1000 responders usually quote 3% error estimates - I think they use a 2-sigma definition, so the claim would be that the result of a national poll should lie within 3% of the pollster's result 95% of the time.
Your poll has only 100 responders, which increases your uncertainty to almost 10%. So the result of your poll would be:
In: 54% +/- 10%
Out: 46% +/- 10%
Fold into this the fact that the sample is neither known nor unbiased, and the conclusion is that you can't say much more than it's close to a 50:50 split.
At one time, the result from a sample of 40 (i.e. almost half the size) was evidently
In: 16
Out: 24
In terms of percentages, and using the above analysis, this would give
In: 40% +/- 15%
Out: 60% +/- 15%
which is again 50:50 within errors.
(My own estimate of the errors gives somewhat smaller error estimates, but I may have forgotten something.)
Crackeday
14-Jan-12, 16:16
Yes. 54% : 46% in a national poll is a clear result - assuming the turnout was reasonable.
However, the closeness of the result means the issue wouldn't be settled in the eyes of many.
Polls with 1000 responders usually quote 3% error estimates - I think they use a 2-sigma definition, so the claim would be that the result of a national poll should lie within 3% of the pollster's result 95% of the time.
Your poll has only 100 responders, which increases your uncertainty to almost 10%. So the result of your poll would be:
In: 54% +/- 10%
Out: 46% +/- 10%
Fold into this the fact that the sample is neither known nor unbiased, and the conclusion is that you can't say much more than it's close to a 50:50 split.
At one time, the result from a sample of 40 (i.e. almost half the size) was evidently
In: 16
Out: 24
In terms of percentages, and using the above analysis, this would give
In: 40% +/- 15%
Out: 60% +/- 15%
which is again 50:50 within errors.
(My own estimate of the errors gives somewhat smaller error estimates, but I may have forgotten something.)
Wouldnt it be easier to say someone one and someone lost? That formula is more bamboozling than the hook on a womans bra!!!! ;)
Wouldnt it be easier to say someone one and someone lost? That formula is more bamboozling than the hook on a womans bra!!!! ;)
I think we can safely say it was and will be a very close race. I for one would take on board warnings like the above about interest rates. In such a fragile time, higher rates are likely to kill the very poorly housing market stone dead and add so much to the monthly cost of living for anyone with a mortgage that it will make inflation and the fuel rises look like a bargain! If you don't have a mortgage it will still impact, killing the bulding industry, a very big employer in Scotland.
teddybear1873
14-Jan-12, 17:32
30-40 years ago, Independence would be a good thing with the fishing industry, power stations, oil, farming, construction, coal etc doing better back then.
Now, I don't think Scotland could stand on It's own 2 feet.
Scotland would be an extremely expensive country to live in.
secrets in symmetry
14-Jan-12, 17:37
I think we can safely say it was and will be a very close race. I for one would take on board warnings like the above about interest rates. In such a fragile time, higher rates are likely to kill the very poorly housing market stone dead and add so much to the monthly cost of living for anyone with a mortgage that it will make inflation and the fuel rises look like a bargain! If you don't have a mortgage it will still impact, killing the bulding industry, a very big employer in Scotland.I don't know whether the real thing would be close or not, but I do agree with most of what's in the Scotsman article that teddybear1873 posted. Well, everything that didn't come from John Swinney. :cool:
secrets in symmetry
14-Jan-12, 17:48
30-40 years ago, Independence would be a good thing with the fishing industry, power stations, oil, farming, construction, coal etc doing better back then.
Now, I don't think Scotland could stand on It's own 2 feet.
Scotland would be an extremely expensive country to live in.The SNP's argument is that the situation is still ok. We still have a lot of oil, and the rest will be replaced by power from renewables. I don't think Eck understands the problems with renewables - possibly because he is badly advised - but I can't be sure of that.
Scotland would be an extremely expensive country to live in.
Isn't that a good thing?
The wealthier a country the more expensive it is to live there, or would you prefer Scotland was on par with sub-Sahara Africa where people can live on less than £1 a day?
John Little
14-Jan-12, 18:10
Isn't that a good thing?
The wealthier a country the more expensive it is to live there...
Yes - but it rather depends on who's got the cash as to who actually benefits.
Yes - but it rather depends on who's got the cash as to who actually benefits.
Which is a totally different issue & I'm sure an independent Scotland can't possibly as bad as a Tory run UK when it comes to fairness of wealth distribution.
John Little
14-Jan-12, 18:22
Which is a totally different issue & I'm sure an independent Scotland can't possibly as bad as a Tory run UK when it comes to fairness of wealth distribution.
LOL! You may well be right there!
John Little
14-Jan-12, 18:36
Which is a totally different issue & I'm sure an independent Scotland can't possibly as bad as a Tory run UK when it comes to fairness of wealth distribution.
Actually that's a very interesting point. The SNP are a left of centre party. Would that incline them to a more socialist approach to taxation post independence?
secrets in symmetry
14-Jan-12, 18:56
The wealthier a country the more expensive it is to live there, or would you prefer Scotland was on par with sub-Sahara Africa where people can live on less than £1 a day?What you say is often true, but not always. The United States has had a low cost of living at various times during its illustrious economy history.
The converse is not necessarily true either. The Soviet Union was expensive to live in - for non-essentials, at least - in the decade before it collapsed. This may have been due to a lack of non-essentials for sale, but that's not exactly good!
teddybear1873
14-Jan-12, 19:12
Isn't that a good thing?
The wealthier a country the more expensive it is to live there, or would you prefer Scotland was on par with sub-Sahara Africa where people can live on less than £1 a day?
Not necessarily. Norway is wealthy but expensive, Australia is also wealthy but cheaper to live.
USA is wealthy......well sort off now, and there is plenty parts of the States that is very affordable to live in.
The United States has had a low cost of living at various times during its illustrious economy history.
That is down to a number of exceptional factors not really relevant to us....
Land is cheap due to the size of the country relative to population. Also it has probably the unfairest wealth distribution of any western country so that although for some it might appear that they are wealthy for many it is like living in a 3rd world country with very little support for the poor helping to keep the cost of living down. Then they have the extremely high prison population used as cheap labour not to mention all the "illegal" immigrants keeping parts of their economy running at low cost.... Could go on but that is another issue entirely.
The Soviet Union was expensive to live in - for non-essentials, at least - in the decade before it collapsed.
Once again... A corrupt political system.
Nick Noble
14-Jan-12, 19:14
If we leave the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, surely they'll have to change their name. Britain won't exist any more, will it?
Independence or no independence Great Britain will still exist. It is the name of the largest island in Europe, and the ninth largest island in the world. It has nothing to do with the political arrangements within the islands of the British Isles.
Just the same as Ireland is the name of the island that is administered by 2 seperate governments, and is a part of the British Isles.
teddybear1873
14-Jan-12, 19:26
I still think It's a bad idea for Scotland to become independent. What we going to do for an army and defence? Will there be a border put up? What about all the English, Irish and Welsh in the country and where do they stand? What is going to happen to the NHS?
Taxes will rise and sharply. The middle family will get poorer and the poorer will be...........well doomed.
secrets in symmetry
14-Jan-12, 19:27
Not necessarily. Norway is wealthy but expensive, Australia is also wealthy but cheaper to live.
USA is wealthy......well sort off now, and there is plenty parts of the States that is very affordable to live in.My mate moved to Oz a few months ago. He was back here for Christmas, and he says it is very expensive there now. I think this is largely due to the exchange rate - the Australian dollar is currently about A$1.5 to the £. It was more than A$2 to the £ not long ago! He gets paid in Australian dollars of course, so it's not actually expensive for him.
secrets in symmetry
14-Jan-12, 19:30
That is down to a number of exceptional factors not really relevant to us....
Land is cheap due to the size of the country relative to population. Also it has probably the unfairest wealth distribution of any western country so that although for some it might appear that they are wealthy for many it is like living in a 3rd world country with very little support for the poor helping to keep the cost of living down. Then they have the extremely high prison population used as cheap labour not to mention all the "illegal" immigrants keeping parts of their economy running at low cost.... Could go on but that is another issue entirely.
Once again... A corrupt political system.I don't disagree with anything you say, but I think in addition the low cost of goods in the US was also largely due to their flexible (but ruthless) market economy, and, as you say, their lack of social welfare system.
The Soviet Union was a total basket case, but an expensive one nonetheless.
I still think It's a bad idea for Scotland to become independent. What we going to do for an army and defence? Will there be a border put up? What about all the English, Irish and Welsh in the country and where do they stand? What is going to happen to the NHS?
Taxes will rise and sharply. The middle family will get poorer and the poorer will be...........well doomed.
Everyone talks about Army and defence. What for? Are we going to start a war (with England :lol:) as soon as the ink is dry on the declaration?
We don't have enough people in total to have a credible army, and who is going to pay for it.?
No, I think an independent Scotland will have to give it a miss. Apart from say Wee Eck's personal body guard. (and about 3 months after Independence, boy is he going to need it!)
weezer 316
15-Jan-12, 12:40
Ah well then, thats the 10 000 or so scotrish squaddies, plus all the people employed by the MOD in scotland out of a job. reckon that will add a point of two to the unemployed stats. Nice start Eck.
Ah well then, thats the 10 000 or so scotrish squaddies, plus all the people employed by the MOD in scotland out of a job. reckon that will add a point of two to the unemployed stats. Nice start Eck.
The Royal Regiment of Scotland and The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards are part of the British Army. If they are not required to be part of any Scottish Defence Force there is no reason why they can't remain part of the British Army. The SNP doesn't appear to have any coherent defence policy that I can find.
teddybear1873
15-Jan-12, 14:39
Everyone talks about Army and defence. What for? Are we going to start a war (with England :lol:) as soon as the ink is dry on the declaration?
We don't have enough people in total to have a credible army, and who is going to pay for it.?
No, I think an independent Scotland will have to give it a miss. Apart from say Wee Eck's personal body guard. (and about 3 months after Independence, boy is he going to need it!)
So why should England have an army and Scotland not?
Do we really need an army?
Who are we going to be defending ourselves against?
Are the English gonna try to take us back by force?
teddybear1873
15-Jan-12, 14:49
Do we really need an army?
Who are we going to be defending ourselves against?
Are the English gonna try to take us back by force?
Course we need an army. So we can input National Service again, to sort out the young one's attitude and get some respect back into this nation :D
demac-artist
15-Jan-12, 14:54
Aswell as the Army, Navy, Airforce being under English jurisdictional the Social welfare is also under them so we would have to start anew
Also majority of the oil rigs are tied in with the lease contracts that are again under the English Government so heres the question how can we support ourselves as a country? I am for Indepenence but there are practicalities that need to be thought out also England will be asking for money for the investments they have put into Scotland, we have pee'd off american (who runs the World Bank) with releasing the Lybian bomber, so when we want money to initially to support ourselves to start off thats going to be at a higher rate and what would our assets be as England have majority control which they have made sure of, so we could be massive debt before the ink is dry
England want to take control of the independent poll to be one question, what are they afraid of? England has to realise that they are no longer the Great British Empire, also the EU already recognises that Northern Ireland is already part of the Republic of Ireland and they still havent given it back and that was years ago so what chance of we got and we would also need to have a border force our own currency and our own passport system. Ain't politics great!!!/ little bit much to be have all this discussed when we only have one question offered to us hence why the SNP are pushing for a three question option. Hope they dont cave in
Deanne
Course we need an army. So we can input National Service again, to sort out the young one's attitude and get some respect back into this nation :D
Or to teach them more effective fighting skills so that they are more likely to kill each other when they do get into a fight helping to reduce their numbers....
http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs24/f/2008/021/4/c/devil_laghin_by_Scotsgirl_606.gif
Do we really need an army?
Who are we going to be defending ourselves against?
Are the English gonna try to take us back by force?
Even Switzerland and Sweden have military forces, and they are Neutral Countries
Aswell as the Army, Navy, Airforce being under English jurisdictional the Social welfare is also under them so we would have to start anew
Also majority of the oil rigs are tied in with the lease contracts that are again under the English Government so heres the question how can we support ourselves as a country? I am for Indepenence but there are practicalities that need to be thought out also England will be asking for money for the investments they have put into Scotland, we have pee'd off american (who runs the World Bank) with releasing the Lybian bomber, so when we want money to initially to support ourselves to start off thats going to be at a higher rate and what would our assets be as England have majority control which they have made sure of, so we could be massive debt before the ink is dry
England want to take control of the independent poll to be one question, what are they afraid of? England has to realise that they are no longer the Great British Empire, also the EU already recognises that Northern Ireland is already part of the Republic of Ireland and they still havent given it back and that was years ago so what chance of we got and we would also need to have a border force our own currency and our own passport system. Ain't politics great!!!/ little bit much to be have all this discussed when we only have one question offered to us hence why the SNP are pushing for a three question option. Hope they dont cave in
Deanne
Your argument fails at the first hurdle since you insist that a non-existent English government has jurisdiction. The Westminster government is the government of the United Kingdom and is made up of MPs and Lords from all corners of the UK, aye including Scotland. It will remain so until the results of a referendum show otherwise. No one is going to get anywhere if they don’t recognise this basic fact and work within the existing framework.
weezer 316
15-Jan-12, 15:37
Come on now gronnuck, dont hit nationalists with logic and facts! Really poor show I must say!
also the EU already recognises that Northern Ireland is already part of the Republic of Ireland and they still havent given it back and that was years ago
Eh?????????????????????
Crackeday
16-Jan-12, 18:49
Eh?????????????????????
Yeah im the same Eh???????????????????? better tell the people of Northern ireland that as they havent been told nthat there part of the republic!!!! :)
Yeah im the same Eh???????????????????? better tell the people of Northern ireland that as they havent been told nthat there part of the republic!!!! :)
Probably why the UK government don't want 16 year olds voting in the referendum....and wee eck does. :roll:
Eh?????????????????????
Yes, I wondered what he was on about
From the EU website:
"The United Kingdom (UK) consists of England, Wales, Scotland (who together make up Great Britain) and Northern Ireland. "
http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/unitedkingdom/index_en.htm (http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/unitedkingdom/index_en.htm)
Probably why the UK government don't want 16 year olds voting in the referendum....and wee eck does. :roll:
On a side note I've always wondered why we a lower limit on thing like voting - due to perceived immaturity I suppose - but not an upper limit. After which point people could be considered out of touch or holding anachronistic opinions.
Getting sort of back on topic I thought I'd post this - http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-does-scotland-look-bonnie-to-foreign-investors/9080
Found this just now and I like it: Vote Britain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-znkbMzi4A
Depends what type of investors. The sort that bring their ideas to Scotland, build plant and facilities, employ new workers pay taxes and rates. Great where are they?
The other kind, German in origin, buy a massive Scottish business, use existing plant and facilities and workers, move parts to other parts of the UK (England :mad:) Consolidate other bits into their own existing brands, make excess workers redundant and take the profit off back to Germany. Very helpful!
This makes interesting reading.
http://money.aol.co.uk/2012/01/17/independent-scots-would-owe-269bn/
This makes interesting reading.
http://money.aol.co.uk/2012/01/17/independent-scots-would-owe-269bn/
Yeah that sounds balanced and not hate filled at all, AOL can't even do decent broadband - their primary business - so excuse if I'm dismissive of their news.
secrets in symmetry
18-Jan-12, 08:52
Yeah that sounds balanced and not hate filled at all, AOL can't even do decent broadband - their primary business - so excuse if I'm dismissive of their news.Yes, it's hopelessly unbalanced, probably full of untruths and arguably hate-filled.
So it has a lot in common with the YouTube clip you posted yesterday!
Yes, it's hopelessly unbalanced, probably full of untruths and arguably hate-filled.
So it has a lot in common with the YouTube clip you posted yesterday!
One is supposedly news, the other is art. You can't expect people to control the retarded comments on a YouTube clip either. YouTube is notorious for having dodgy comments. I'd argue any perceived hate in the video though.
The problem is the issue is always going to emotional. I'd 'hate' to see the breakup of the UK, Nationalists 'hate' the idea of staying in the UK for a minute longer than neccesary.
I like the nationalist view on the whole but I still want to stay British.:confused
I wonder if, in the event of Independence, the Unionist will make a comeback then the whole thing will start again from the other direction and in 50 or 300 years time we'll be demanding a referendum on rejoining the Union?
A Scottish Labour MP has resigned as the partys social media advisor after posting a spoof video in which Eck is shown as Hitler. Quite right, too.
Hitler had only one testical. As Eck is showing his reluctance to hold the Referendum, seems he has none [lol]
DeHaviLand
21-Jan-12, 23:33
A Scottish Labour MP has resigned as the partys social media advisor after posting a spoof video in which Eck is shown as Hitler. Quite right, too.
Hitler had only one testical. As Eck is showing his reluctance to hold the Referendum, seems he has none [lol]
So, putting forward the date for the referendum is showing reluctance to have one? Are you really as mad as you come across, or should we just make allowances for your advanced years eroding your brain cells? Clearly, by the time the referendum comes around, you will no longer have the mental capacity to cast a vote, therefore your vote will be given to a 16 year old.
So, putting forward the date for the referendum is showing reluctance to have one? Are you really as mad as you come across, or should we just make allowances for your advanced years eroding your brain cells? Clearly, by the time the referendum comes around, you will no longer have the mental capacity to cast a vote, therefore your vote will be given to a 16 year old.
We silver surfers have more common sense than Eck's tiny tots [lol]
Shabbychic
22-Jan-12, 00:30
We silver surfers have more common sense than Eck's tiny tots [lol]
I think you may find that many silver surfers do indeed have common sense, and that many now vote SNP. They don't all live in the past.
DeHaviLand
22-Jan-12, 02:31
Here's another silver surfer who has plainly lost his marbles! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090020/We-wont-whisky-break-away-Hague-tells-Scotland.html
Here's another silver surfer who has plainly lost his marbles! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090020/We-wont-whisky-break-away-Hague-tells-Scotland.html
Mr Hague told a private meeting that if Scotland goes it alone, embassies will stop promoting the drink. Scotland would have to take over the job – and pay for it.
Fair enough?
Humerous Vegetable
22-Jan-12, 11:16
It's unfortunate that the Unionists, in their panic, have chosen to adopt negative campaigning. Scare stories will come thick and fast over the next 2 years, but will only frighten those who choose to believe what the red-top press try to tell them. Most of us are a bit more discriminating and sceptical about press manipulation these days, thank God.
Mr Hague told a private meeting that if Scotland goes it alone, embassies will stop promoting the drink. Scotland would have to take over the job – and pay for it.
Fair enough?
It wont stop them drinking it for free at Westminster and the Embassies!!!!
C3...............[disgust][disgust]
Mr Hague told a private meeting that if Scotland goes it alone, embassies will stop promoting the drink.Phenomenal!
What about Irn-Bru?
It wont stop them drinking it for free at Westminster and the Embassies!!!!
C3...............[disgust][disgust]
I don't know what the big deal is. Yet another Foreign owned 'Scottish' institution.:roll:
And no more deep-fried Mars Bars will be sampled in the Diplomatic service either!
Which is a totally different issue & I'm sure an independent Scotland can't possibly as bad as a Tory run UK when it comes to fairness of wealth distribution.Is any political party free from wealthy benefactors and big budgeted lobbyists? Could it be that we end up with an Edinburgh centric gov't in so far as the focus of their policies?
Once again... A corrupt political system.Aren't they all?
It's unfortunate that the Unionists, in their panic, have chosen to adopt negative campaigning. Scare stories will come thick and fast over the next 2 years, but will only frighten those who choose to believe what the red-top press try to tell them. Most of us are a bit more discriminating and sceptical about press manipulation these days, thank God.
I think the problem is, to us Unionists, there are no good, positive arguments for independence, but there are plenty of potentially dire consequences.
Please list the positive reasons for us, maybe you will gain some converts.
A new cocktail to be served at Scottish embassies worldwide after the "Longest Shout": - the "Fireman's Helmet": 50% Scotch, 50% Buckfast, served in fire glasses, and accompanied by deep-fried Ferraro Rocher. (The Scottish embassies for 190 plus sovereign states are another set of imponderables which haven't been costed out in "Eck of 1000 Days" manifesto/plans/dreams......)
It's unfortunate that the Unionists, in their panic, have chosen to adopt negative campaigning. Scare stories will come thick and fast over the next 2 years, but will only frighten those who choose to believe what the red-top press try to tell them. Most of us are a bit more discriminating and sceptical about press manipulation these days,Unionists, Nationalist, Tories, Labourites, Loonyist, politicos et al will be using best of the worse tricks the media has for scaremongering with skewed statistics, outright lies, out of context soundbites for pro / negative campaigning.
Which makes the whole situation worse because it's harder then to actually see and understand where the benefits and downsides of independence lie and what is actually best for Scotland rather than the various players trying to stick two fingers up to Westminster or the English or to Alex Salmond etc.
...... deep-fried Ferraro Rocher.Hmmm, I was wondering what to have for lunch!
I think the problem is, to us Unionists, there are no good, positive arguments for independence, but there are plenty of potentially dire consequences.
Please list the positive reasons for us, maybe you will gain some converts.
What he means is that the Unionist campaign should focus on the benefits of Scotland remaining part of the UK instead of the negatives of it leaving... perhaps there are no benefits though hence the negative campaigning.
A new cocktail to be served at Scottish embassies worldwide after the "Longest Shout": - the "Fireman's Helmet": 50% Scotch, 50% Buckfast, served in fire glasses, and accompanied by deep-fried Ferraro Rocher. (The Scottish embassies for 190 plus sovereign states are another set of imponderables which haven't been costed out in "Eck of 1000 Days" manifesto/plans/dreams......)
I'm amazed at the outright bigoted stuff that can be said just because the majority of Scottish people happen to be white. One would imagine that similar statements involving black people and fried chicken and watermelon would not be acceptable. I don't care about the man on the street, but I see those same sentiments in newspapers and on TV.
It's unfortunate that the Unionists, in their panic, have chosen to adopt negative campaigning. Scare stories will come thick and fast over the next 2 years, but will only frighten those who choose to believe what the red-top press try to tell them. Most of us are a bit more discriminating and sceptical about press manipulation these days, thank God.
There really no need to adopt negative campaigning. Just mention the hundred-and-one things that the 'independents' have not though of. William Hague's mention of whisky highlights another major cost the SNP will have to consider - a Scottish diplomatic service supporting Scottish trade missions. Who's going to pay for this?
John Little
23-Jan-12, 11:09
There really no need to adopt negative campaigning. Just mention the hundred-and-one things that the 'independents' have not though of. William Hague's mention of whisky highlights another major cost the SNP will have to consider - a Scottish diplomatic service supporting Scottish trade missions. Who's going to pay for this?
You will...:Razz
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.